News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Francis Collins: Science is about trying to get rigorous answers to questions about how nature works. And it’s a very important process that’s actually quite reliable if carried out correctly with generation of hypotheses and testing of those by accumulation of data and then drawing conclusions that are continually revisited to be sure they are right. So if you want to answer questions about how nature works, how biology works, for instance, science is the way to get there. Scientists believe in that they are very troubled by a suggestion that other kinds of approaches can be taken to derive truth about nature. And some I think have seen faith as therefore a threat to the scientific method and therefore it to be resisted.

But faith in its perspective is really asking a different set of questions....

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

^ Indeed. Faith, nor philosophy for that matter, is not askind for the physical explanations for how the universe works, but rather, it's asking about Truth, the Good, and the Ground of our being.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Not in the two Parishes I have belonged to. They are packed with Scientists and highly educated people.

At trapeeza the other day I looked around the table and there was a Biologist whose Christian father is an Engineer, a Rocket Scientist ( no less),a Geologist and a guy who translates techno documents for Oil Companies in about 7 different languages. And that's the dumb-bell table

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Not in the two Parishes I have belonged to. They are packed with Scientists and highly educated people.

At trapeeza the other day I looked around the table and there was a Biologist whose Christian father is an Engineer, a Rocket Scientist ( no less),a Geologist and a guy who translates techno documents for Oil Companies in about 7 different languages. And that's the dumb-bell table

Yes, I believe it is in a link on one of the other posts regarding the new 2010 study that shows there is a higher percentage of higher educated people in Orthodoxy than in RC or Protestantism. It is not surprising that there would be more scientists.

I'm going to be attending a talk given by Neil deGrasse Tyson this Thursday. If I can corner him afterwards (I don't want to bring it up during an official question/answer period, for various reasons), I'll ask him for his thoughts.

I don't see any information about them giving specific definitions. They seem to have just been given three choices regarding the existence of God/gods/a higher power, and asked the people being polled to say which most closely matched how they self-identified; the exact wording of those three choices were: doubt/agnosticism, personal disbelief, and personal belief. Some of the other information includes data on which types of scientists most believed in God, and what impact being an elite scientist had.

Well for any scientist who understands what science is capable of it shouldn't be so hard. But then there are those scientism types who essentially deify science which might make them unable tot he suggestion of God. There are still scientists who beieve in God, many have been the most influential

I don't see any information about them giving specific definitions. They seem to have just been given three choices regarding the existence of God/gods/a higher power, and asked the people being polled to say which most closely matched how they self-identified; the exact wording of those three choices were: doubt/agnosticism, personal disbelief, and personal belief. Some of the other information includes data on which types of scientists most believed in God, and what impact being an elite scientist had.

Gotcha. Thats an odd way that worded it. I would like to see a study where they didn't use agnostic.

^ Indeed. Faith, nor philosophy for that matter, is not askind for the physical explanations for how the universe works, but rather, it's asking about Truth, the Good, and the Ground of our being.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable. That is to say a rational person could not have a reasonable level of confidence in a non-verifiable extraordinary observation.

The problem with non-scientific methods is that, statistically and objectively speaking, they have a very low confidence level. They are no more believable than the crazy guy who wears a tinfoil hat to stop aliens from reading his brainwaves.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

Interestingly, according to the data in the book I mentioned earlier, mathematicians are the most likely among those polled to believe in God. According to Shermer, the data from the 1916 poll indicated that biologists were the least likely to believe, though nowadays it's those evil physicists and astronomers who are most likely to not believe.

^ Indeed. Faith, nor philosophy for that matter, is not askind for the physical explanations for how the universe works, but rather, it's asking about Truth, the Good, and the Ground of our being.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable. That is to say a rational person could not have a reasonable level of confidence in a non-verifiable extraordinary observation.

The problem with non-scientific methods is that, statistically and objectively speaking, they have a very low confidence level. They are no more believable than the crazy guy who wears a tinfoil hat to stop aliens from reading his brainwaves.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

In your view, in what cases is it irresponsible to believe one's conclusions if they can't be tested by the scientific method? You might need to qualify this as your post seems to encourage the logic that for instance, most/if not all verdicts in a court of law would be irresponsible, and really any "conclusion" one makes on anything that isn't repeatable, verifiable, and deniable would seem to be by your criteria "irresponsible".

Gotcha. Thats an odd way that worded it. I would like to see a study where they didn't use agnostic.

Unfortunately many people are not familiar with weak atheism, think that atheism is exclusively strong atheism, and allocate the meaning of weak atheism to agnosticism. So they actually wind up not even understanding what agnosticism or atheism really are.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable.

I don't see why scientists would be bound to the scientific method in all aspects of their life and who they are.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

Interestingly, according to the data in the book I mentioned earlier, mathematicians are the most likely among those polled to believe in God. According to Shermer, the data from the 1916 poll indicated that biologists were the least likely to believe at that time, though nowadays it's those evil physicists and astronomers who are most likely to not believe.

That should not be surprising, most scientists are trained to think in terms of that which is most probable. And while mathematics may provided the basis for probabilistic analysis, it does not use it for its own ends. A perfect example is the problem does P=NP? That is to say can algorithms that operate in non-deterministic polynomial time operate in deterministic polynomial time? Every thing that we have observed or seen says that it can not, in fact all our online security, from government cryptography to https that keeps your banking secure is based on that assumption. But to a mathematician, since it has not been proven, the fact that 30 years of observation has demonstrated the hypothesis to be true is completely irrelevant, mathematicians still consider the hypothesis equally likely to true or false.

With that mindset, it's logical that most mathematicians are agnostic, the existence of a deity has not been mathematically proven, therefore it does not matter that the non-existence of a deity is highly improbable, until there is an absolute proof one way or another, all the evidence in the world, either for or against, does not matter. Of course there are some, mostly those who have been involved in or influenced by the other sciences, such as myself, who will reject the idea of a god because it is so improbable. Then there are others who will accept a god because it is expected by their culture or family. I knew many mathematicians who fit into the latter category, but they are not religious like most people on this board, they are culturally religious.

As an anecdotal example, I had one mathematics professor who was a Mormon, one of the most strict and literal of religions. He was involved in their church, he practiced the dietary laws, and attended regularly. But he publicly admitted before his peers and students that the only truth in the world came from mathematics, religion was a hobby for him. I would be curious as to a study that investigated the 'belief' of these mathematicians more deeply than a simply question of whether or not you believe in god.

^ Indeed. Faith, nor philosophy for that matter, is not askind for the physical explanations for how the universe works, but rather, it's asking about Truth, the Good, and the Ground of our being.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable. That is to say a rational person could not have a reasonable level of confidence in a non-verifiable extraordinary observation.

The problem with non-scientific methods is that, statistically and objectively speaking, they have a very low confidence level. They are no more believable than the crazy guy who wears a tinfoil hat to stop aliens from reading his brainwaves.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

In your view, in what cases is it irresponsible to believe one's conclusions if they can't be tested by the scientific method? You might need to qualify this as your post seems to encourage the logic that for instance, most/if not all verdicts in a court of law would be irresponsible, and really any "conclusion" one makes on anything that isn't repeatable, verifiable, and deniable would seem to be by your criteria "irresponsible".

I would agree, I think most verdicts in court are irresponsible. I think that, in this day and age, we should require a minimum of 5 credible evidence in combination with a large amount of circumstantial evidence or verifiable evidence, such as enough dna to be tested by various independent labs, or video evidence that can be sent to several sources to be verified for authenticity.

But the injustice and irresponsibility of our legal system proves nothing.

^ Indeed. Faith, nor philosophy for that matter, is not askind for the physical explanations for how the universe works, but rather, it's asking about Truth, the Good, and the Ground of our being.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable. That is to say a rational person could not have a reasonable level of confidence in a non-verifiable extraordinary observation.

The problem with non-scientific methods is that, statistically and objectively speaking, they have a very low confidence level. They are no more believable than the crazy guy who wears a tinfoil hat to stop aliens from reading his brainwaves.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

In your view, in what cases is it irresponsible to believe one's conclusions if they can't be tested by the scientific method? You might need to qualify this as your post seems to encourage the logic that for instance, most/if not all verdicts in a court of law would be irresponsible, and really any "conclusion" one makes on anything that isn't repeatable, verifiable, and deniable would seem to be by your criteria "irresponsible".

I would agree, I think most verdicts in court are irresponsible. I think that, in this day and age, we should require a minimum of 5 credible evidence in combination with a large amount of circumstantial evidence or verifiable evidence, such as enough dna to be tested by various independent labs, or video evidence that can be sent to several sources to be verified for authenticity.

But the injustice and irresponsibility of our legal system proves nothing.

Since I doubt the courts will be taking your minimum requirements up for consideration anytime soon! What I was really interested in was your answer to my first question:

"In your view, in what cases is it irresponsible to believe one's conclusions if they can't be tested by the scientific method?"

Gotcha. Thats an odd way that worded it. I would like to see a study where they didn't use agnostic.

Unfortunately many people are not familiar with weak atheism, think that atheism is exclusively strong atheism, and allocate the meaning of weak atheism to agnosticism. So they actually wind up not even understanding what agnosticism or atheism really are.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable.

I don't see why scientists would be bound to the scientific method in all aspects of their life and who they are.

I guess they would only be bound by that if they are good scientists; there are many bad scientists out there who accept lesser standards of evidence, some will even make up evidence to advance their careers.

But the existence of bad scientists just emphasizes even more the importance of the scientific methods, of reviewing all assertions yourself. It just proves that you should never believe someone because you like what they say or because of their reputation, you should only accept it if it is proven and verifiable.

It's not hard for scientists to believe in God. In fact, most of the great scientific discoveries throughout history were produced by scientists who had deep faith in a Creator. Atheistic science is a very recent phenomenon. Here is an excellent book that demonstrates the historical and vital link between true science and theistic faith: http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Science-Christian-Philosophy-Worldview/dp/0891077669

Selam

« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 06:09:01 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus »

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

So, if you can verify results, it is true?Then, try the Inacian exercises, you will find results. And, please, no psychology smooth talking, because if you believe in results, you don't believe psychology (I mean, they observe the same event, on the same persons, the same cases and came to different conclusions: Freud disagree with Jung, who disagrees with Freud and Skinner, who disagrees with everyone else, and then they start a therapy where they stop trying understand the mind and simply drug the patients).

^ Indeed. Faith, nor philosophy for that matter, is not askind for the physical explanations for how the universe works, but rather, it's asking about Truth, the Good, and the Ground of our being.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable. That is to say a rational person could not have a reasonable level of confidence in a non-verifiable extraordinary observation.

The problem with non-scientific methods is that, statistically and objectively speaking, they have a very low confidence level. They are no more believable than the crazy guy who wears a tinfoil hat to stop aliens from reading his brainwaves.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

Logged

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;Blessed are the pure in the heart, for they shall see God".

I'm going to be attending a talk given by Neil deGrasse Tyson this Thursday. If I can corner him afterwards (I don't want to bring it up during an official question/answer period, for various reasons), I'll ask him for his thoughts.

Wow! I love Neil Degrasse Tyson. He is brilliant, and a true science educator. I'd love to attend a talk by him. I'd definitely love to hear your report of the event. Feel free to PM me if you feel it's not relevant to the boards.

I don't know a single person with a masters or PhD that does not believe in some form of a higher power. Most, maybe all, are Christian.

There have been multiple studies that show that in America, typically the higher level of education one has, the less likely they are to believe in God. Among scientists something like half are non-religious. But among the elite scientists who are members of the national academy of sciences only about 8-10% are actually religious.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has addressed this issue in fact before and said that if we really want to understand the nature of belief vs non-belief we should be looking at those 8-10% of the world's most brilliant scientists who do believe and see what is going on with them compared to those who do not believe.

Here's a link to some information just so people don't accuse me of pulling data out of my rear.

I don't see why scientists would be bound to the scientific method in all aspects of their life and who they are.

I guess they would only be bound by that if they are good scientists;

Notice he said in all aspects of their life. There isn't a (sane) scientist on earth who has completely bound himself to the scientific method in all aspects of their life. That is simply not possible as a human being. Human beings are feeling, emotional animals; we are products of our time, culture, upbringing, genes, worldview and much more. Every human being sees the world through a set of lenses and regardless of what some people claim, there is simply NO verifiable evidence that any person on earth who applies the scientific method to 100% of their life 100% of the time. It is just not possible.

And this I think is the biggest difference between some Atheists and most religious people. Some atheists claim that they never fail at this rigorous method of living and are always being logical, rational, and use science to determine truth at all times. This is, I'm sorry to say nothing but a delusion. Even the the most hard atheist in the world is still using "something" other than the scientific method when he looks at the world, particularly within relationships with other human beings but often times even in his search for truth. We are not clean slates or robots or PC's ready to go at our first boot up. By the time we have the ability to begin skeptical inquiry we have been influenced and conditioned in numerous ways. I speak in part from experience. even in my periods of deep agnosticism I tried to be honest enough with myself to realize that part of me was still viewing the world through an emotional and "unscientific" lens of my life. Unless one is born fully formed like Data on Star Trek, none of us is free from our life experience which colors our view of the world. Even the best scientists are "guilty" of this because it is part of being human.

Quote

But the existence of bad scientists just emphasizes even more the importance of the scientific methods, of reviewing all assertions yourself. It just proves that you should never believe someone because you like what they say or because of their reputation,

I agree with this very much actually!

Quote

you should only accept it if it is proven and verifiable.

How does one prove their deceased loved one cared about them? You cannot talk to the deceased loved one. You cannot perform experiments to repeat or verify anything. So how does one prove that?

How does one even prove for example someone's spouse loves them? Someone asked Richard Dawkins in a debate (I think it was Dinesh D-Souza whom I really cannot stand, but he managed to make a good point in his 25 year career, so what can I say? LOL!) Anyways when asked "how can you prove your wife loves you can it be done?" Dawkins did attempt to answer by saying "yes you can verify it", by a "smile she gives" or a "the wink of an eye" etc...That sounds nice but these are merely subjective things. Maybe his wife is just a good actor?! A wink and a smile is scientific evidence? They can be reproduced of course but they are totally subjective in nature. Just as subjective as any religious experience, possibly even more so. Just because someone I know winks at me doesn't mean they love me.

One cannot even prove via the rigorous scientific method if one's parents "loved" them. the fact that they fed and nurtured them doesn't prove love at all. Many parents "raise" their children and in fact do not love them. And yet children with these types of parents actually "know" that they are not really loved. How do they know this? They were fed? They were clothed? They received Christmas presents, but they "know" somehow they were not loved in the same way as say their best friend down the street was. How do they "know" this? It certainly isn't by the scientific method that's for sure.

Now maybe one day we will get answers to these questions and maybe we won't. For now such feelings as far as any of us know are "subjective". People like Sam Harris believe one day many of these types of questions (like vibes, and intuition etc) will be proven scientifically, but of course this is not an opinion based on anything but wishful thinking and well, his own worldview. He "believes" we will one day know answers to this and so that's what he argues. Some atheists are hard on him for some of these believes, but in reality no one is immune to such thinking. Scientists are no different in this respect. And the subject of "my wife loves me" is but one way scientists view the world outside of the scientific method, there are plenty of others.

I'm not trying to "prove" there is a God at all, I don't think that it can be proved, not even close. But it does bug me to no end when atheists claim that they view the world through scientific means at all times and in all areas of life when such is simply not the case. And notice just as you said, the one's who do use their feelings are "bad scientists" not real scientists like me!

No one thinks completely free from what it means to be human, it would be the sign of a sick mind (literally) in certain cases, like instead of experiencing sexuality with one's partner, one thought "hey this is an interesting scientific experience I'm having!"

No one can do that. It's not like Data's emotion chip in Star Trek TNG. It's ironic thought that in Star Trek characters like Data WANT human emotions and eventually learn when to use and not to use it, but some Atheists think emotions and intuition are bad and always bad. It's like Atheists are aspiring to be Vulcans, but without the ritual and meditation that Vulcans use. (well except maybe Sam Harris..LOL!) And of course Vulcans are not completely honest about "not having emotions" they simply know when to use them and when to not use them.

Philosophical lessons from Star Trek! What can I say, Gene Roddenberry was a genius...

^ Indeed. Faith, nor philosophy for that matter, is not askind for the physical explanations for how the universe works, but rather, it's asking about Truth, the Good, and the Ground of our being.

It doesn't matter what the question is, what matters is the process for answering it. It needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and deniable. If it does not have these characteristic, or at least is not very close to them (some astrological observations rely on multiple simultaneous observers or recorded data that can be further reviewed, but if someone by themselves looking through a telescope said they saw something, it doesn't really matter whether they did or not, because it can not be verified or denied, the observation is useless), then the data is simply not usable. That is to say a rational person could not have a reasonable level of confidence in a non-verifiable extraordinary observation.

The problem with non-scientific methods is that, statistically and objectively speaking, they have a very low confidence level. They are no more believable than the crazy guy who wears a tinfoil hat to stop aliens from reading his brainwaves.

So ask which questions you like, we only demand rigor in their answers; now if you can't provide that, then according to mathematical laws it would simply be irresponsible to believe your conclusions.

No, I think rigor is important, that's why I am not an atheist.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I don't know a single person with a masters or PhD that does not believe in some form of a higher power. Most, maybe all, are Christian.

There have been multiple studies that show that in America, typically the higher level of education one has, the less likely they are to believe in God. Among scientists something like half are non-religious. But among the elite scientists who are members of the national academy of sciences only about 8-10% are actually religious.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has addressed this issue in fact before and said that if we really want to understand the nature of belief vs non-belief we should be looking at those 8-10% of the world's most brilliant scientists who do believe and see what is going on with them compared to those who do not believe.

Here's a link to some information just so people don't accuse me of pulling data out of my rear.

So, if you can verify results, it is true?Then, try the Inacian exercises, you will find results. And, please, no psychology smooth talking, because if you believe in results, you don't believe psychology (I mean, they observe the same event, on the same persons, the same cases and came to different conclusions: Freud disagree with Jung, who disagrees with Freud and Skinner, who disagrees with everyone else, and then they start a therapy where they stop trying understand the mind and simply drug the patients).

I would agree that psychology, per se, is not a science. At it's best it's an art, at worst it's quackery. But there are scientific disciplines related to psychology, such as cognitive psychology which is still in its infancy.

I don't see why scientists would be bound to the scientific method in all aspects of their life and who they are.

I guess they would only be bound by that if they are good scientists;

Notice he said in all aspects of their life. There isn't a (sane) scientist on earth who has completely bound himself to the scientific method in all aspects of their life. That is simply not possible as a human being. Human beings are feeling, emotional animals; we are products of our time, culture, upbringing, genes, worldview and much more. Every human being sees the world through a set of lenses and regardless of what some people claim, there is simply NO verifiable evidence that any person on earth who applies the scientific method to 100% of their life 100% of the time. It is just not possible.

And this I think is the biggest difference between some Atheists and most religious people. Some atheists claim that they never fail at this rigorous method of living and are always being logical, rational, and use science to determine truth at all times. This is, I'm sorry to say nothing but a delusion. Even the the most hard atheist in the world is still using "something" other than the scientific method when he looks at the world, particularly within relationships with other human beings but often times even in his search for truth. We are not clean slates or robots or PC's ready to go at our first boot up. By the time we have the ability to begin skeptical inquiry we have been influenced and conditioned in numerous ways. I speak in part from experience. even in my periods of deep agnosticism I tried to be honest enough with myself to realize that part of me was still viewing the world through an emotional and "unscientific" lens of my life. Unless one is born fully formed like Data on Star Trek, none of us is free from our life experience which colors our view of the world. Even the best scientists are "guilty" of this because it is part of being human.

It is one thing to have emotional experiences, it's another thing to believe something as a result of emotion. The mere fact that one has emotions does not mean that they must allow them to form and influence their ideas and beliefs. For someone who is a good scientist, emotion will have no impact on their work or anything even tangentially related to their work. And I have learned as I've grown older to place my emotional experiences further and further from my beliefs and ideology. Emotions were essential to the survival to our pre-historical ancestors: fear, love, contentment, etc. all have their place in a primitive survival. But in modern society they may provide pleasure or motivation, but are of no use in determining truth or fact.

Quote

Quote

But the existence of bad scientists just emphasizes even more the importance of the scientific methods, of reviewing all assertions yourself. It just proves that you should never believe someone because you like what they say or because of their reputation,

I agree with this very much actually!

Glad we agree on something.

Quote

Quote

you should only accept it if it is proven and verifiable.

How does one prove their deceased loved one cared about them? You cannot talk to the deceased loved one. You cannot perform experiments to repeat or verify anything. So how does one prove that?

How does one even prove for example someone's spouse loves them? Someone asked Richard Dawkins in a debate (I think it was Dinesh D-Souza whom I really cannot stand, but he managed to make a good point in his 25 year career, so what can I say? LOL!) Anyways when asked "how can you prove your wife loves you can it be done?" Dawkins did attempt to answer by saying "yes you can verify it", by a "smile she gives" or a "the wink of an eye" etc...That sounds nice but these are merely subjective things. Maybe his wife is just a good actor?! A wink and a smile is scientific evidence? They can be reproduced of course but they are totally subjective in nature. Just as subjective as any religious experience, possibly even more so. Just because someone I know winks at me doesn't mean they love me.

One cannot even prove via the rigorous scientific method if one's parents "loved" them. the fact that they fed and nurtured them doesn't prove love at all. Many parents "raise" their children and in fact do not love them. And yet children with these types of parents actually "know" that they are not really loved. How do they know this? They were fed? They were clothed? They received Christmas presents, but they "know" somehow they were not loved in the same way as say their best friend down the street was. How do they "know" this? It certainly isn't by the scientific method that's for sure.

Now maybe one day we will get answers to these questions and maybe we won't. For now such feelings as far as any of us know are "subjective". People like Sam Harris believe one day many of these types of questions (like vibes, and intuition etc) will be proven scientifically, but of course this is not an opinion based on anything but wishful thinking and well, his own worldview. He "believes" we will one day know answers to this and so that's what he argues. Some atheists are hard on him for some of these believes, but in reality no one is immune to such thinking. Scientists are no different in this respect. And the subject of "my wife loves me" is but one way scientists view the world outside of the scientific method, there are plenty of others.

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

Quote

I'm not trying to "prove" there is a God at all, I don't think that it can be proved, not even close. But it does bug me to no end when atheists claim that they view the world through scientific means at all times and in all areas of life when such is simply not the case. And notice just as you said, the one's who do use their feelings are "bad scientists" not real scientists like me!

No one thinks completely free from what it means to be human, it would be the sign of a sick mind (literally) in certain cases, like instead of experiencing sexuality with one's partner, one thought "hey this is an interesting scientific experience I'm having!"

Nothing wrong with giving ourselves over to pleasure, but we should not develop ideologies on that basis. Sex is great, I'd recommend having it as often as you can, and when you have it give yourself over to the rush of endorphins and the sensations of the nervous system; but there is no reason to believe it is anything more than that, we're triggering responses we were evolutionary programmed to enjoy. The fact that it is very enjoyable does not change this fact and I can see no reason to believe it is anything more.

Quote

No one can do that. It's not like Data's emotion chip in Star Trek TNG. It's ironic thought that in Star Trek characters like Data WANT human emotions and eventually learn when to use and not to use it, but some Atheists think emotions and intuition are bad and always bad. It's like Atheists are aspiring to be Vulcans, but without the ritual and meditation that Vulcans use. (well except maybe Sam Harris..LOL!) And of course Vulcans are not completely honest about "not having emotions" they simply know when to use them and when to not use them.

Philosophical lessons from Star Trek! What can I say, Gene Roddenberry was a genius...

There is nothing wrong with having emotions, there is only something wrong with letting our emotions guide our understanding of the world, our beliefs, and our ideologies.

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

So devotion to some one is nothing more than a biochemical reaction?What about people who chose to do what is best for another, even when they don't have the feeling of love?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

So devotion to some one is nothing more than a biochemical reaction?What about people who chose to do what is best for another, even when they don't have the feeling of love?

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

So devotion to some one is nothing more than a biochemical reaction?What about people who chose to do what is best for another, even when they don't have the feeling of love?

There have also been neurological studies on altruism.

So which biochemical reaction chooses between altruism and not being altruistic?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

So devotion to some one is nothing more than a biochemical reaction?What about people who chose to do what is best for another, even when they don't have the feeling of love?

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

So devotion to some one is nothing more than a biochemical reaction?What about people who chose to do what is best for another, even when they don't have the feeling of love?

Social pressure?

Social preassure is a biochemical reaction or social pressure governs biochemical reactions?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

So devotion to some one is nothing more than a biochemical reaction?What about people who chose to do what is best for another, even when they don't have the feeling of love?

Social pressure?

Social preassure is a biochemical reaction or social pressure governs biochemical reactions?

It is one thing to have emotional experiences, it's another thing to believe something as a result of emotion. The mere fact that one has emotions does not mean that they must allow them to form and influence their ideas and beliefs.

This is true, but I still do not have the absolute distrust of emotion, intuition, and the like that some atheists claim to have. I say "claim" to have, because I don't think anyone is completely capable of viewing the world via the scientific method 100% of the time. And I just question such claims. In part because such a claim is, well untestable and unverifiable.

Quote

But in modern society they (emotions) may provide pleasure or motivation, but are of no use in determining truth or fact.

Verify that claim!

No I get what you're saying, and as I said I'm not arguing for or against belief in anything. Only attempting to point out that regardless of what people claim, everyone relies on something other than verifiable testable physical evidence at some point to determine 'truth' and their view of the world. I don't see how even brilliant people like Dawkins (whom as I've said before I actually have a great deal of respect for) are any different than any other human being on the planet. it's the claim that they have "risen above" our evolutionary history that I find a bit . . . annoying? I'm not sure that's the word i'm looking for but it just seems like a silly claim. It is admirable to strive and live a skeptical life and not be influenced purely on the basis of how one feels, or to believe something just because "it make sense to me" I definitely agree with that. It just bugs me when some people essentially claim they are basically not human beings and are free in all points from the confines of emotion. Of course then the assumption itself is questionable, that being disconnected from them is a good thing. But isn't that merely subjective too? You said emotion served it's purpose in our evolutionary history, but then presume that it's usefulness has been outlived. But how do you know this? Because emotions more often than not cause harm of one sort or another? Well overly scientific and "rational" thinking have done harm to. (I put rational in quotes because it's not really rational thinking that causes harm, but irrational thinking disguised as rational thinking)

Quote

There is nothing wrong with having emotions, there is only something wrong with letting our emotions guide our understanding of the world, our beliefs, and our ideologies.

I basically agree with you. My point was that everyone, including atheists, including you and me, let something other than the scientific method guide our worldview. Dawkins "proofs" that his wife loves him are but one example, regardless of how certain he is that these are in fact in line with the scientific method. It's the claim that you (and Dawkins) are free from this that I simply do not accept. That's all.

As I said there is no verifiable evidence for it. I can only take your word for it. I do agree we should all strive to not let ourselves be carried about by our emotions, wishful thinking, and our baser instincts. I'm just, well as I said, skeptical that anyone is essentially Data before receiving his emotion chip, that's all.

I appreciate your response and feel we will simply have to agree to disagree on this issue. But I do appreciate the discourse and dialogue rather than a "debate".

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

So devotion to some one is nothing more than a biochemical reaction?What about people who chose to do what is best for another, even when they don't have the feeling of love?

Social pressure?

Social preassure is a biochemical reaction or social pressure governs biochemical reactions?

I do not know that you can prove that someone loves you, many a man has been taken advantage of my a woman who has pretended to love them (and vice versa), in fact some studies suggest there is a good chance she does not love you but finds life with you more comfortable than it would be otherwise. I would suggest that a 'proof' (that word is thrown around too lightly though, there is no such thing as a proof in science, just 'highly probable') would depend on eliminating variables, if you're wealthy and your wife married into money, it's unlikely you can ever prove she loves you, as you said people can be good actors. If you're poor and she stays with you through hardship, it's more likely she loves you, but there are other factors such as insecurity, family pressure, social pressure, etc. that may explain things. The more variables you can objectively eliminate the more certain you can be.

How can you even know what love is?

It's a biochemical reaction, it can be measured by scans of the human brain or hormone levels. A quick search on the 'biology of love' in Google scholar will give you many studies to this effect.

I have said this before but I want to repeat it.

Science does not necessarily have to be grounded in Materialism. Materialism does not equal Scientific. Everything does not have to be the result of friction or chemical reactions. Real Science is solely concerned with what is True.

For example, Materialist/Scientists for years would laugh off Religious claims because they scoffed that something can happen that is "Invisible"How very naive they turned out to be. The Truth is not only can events be "Invisible" to us, but we now know that events can occur in Dimensions of existence far beyond our perception. Scientists were wrong. We were on to something.

More and more of our beliefs are becoming plausible with the advance of True Scientific inquiry, not less. Life after death for one matter can now be imagined in a way that Science can understand or at least approach without laughter.

Science has lagged behind Christianity, not the other way around.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 10:53:57 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I like what you are onto, but if you look at Christianity as a whole then yes.... Christianity has lagged behind science. Every argument for ID/creationism (that I am aware of) has been all sorts of debunked. Yet Christians still love to use them, a lot of times writing books on them. In one specific case printed an apologetics study bible filled with these inaccuracies which is pushing the realm of dishonest.

I like what you are onto, but if you look at Christianity as a whole then yes.... Christianity has lagged behind science. Every argument for ID/creationism (that I am aware of) has been all sorts of debunked. Yet Christians still love to use them, a lot of times writing books on them. In one specific case printed an apologetics study bible filled with these inaccuracies which is pushing the realm of dishonest.

Good point... I was thinking more of the metaphysics of religion and things like our understanding of time and place.

Creationism does seem to be in conflict with what is obvious. But I would say that is due to an overly literal reading of some scriptures. The story of creation is still True in terms of WHY God created the World and the fundamental nature of creation ( as being Good).

« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 12:22:37 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I like what you are onto, but if you look at Christianity as a whole then yes.... Christianity has lagged behind science. Every argument for ID/creationism (that I am aware of) has been all sorts of debunked. Yet Christians still love to use them, a lot of times writing books on them. In one specific case printed an apologetics study bible filled with these inaccuracies which is pushing the realm of dishonest.

Good point... I was thinking more of the metaphysics of religion and things like our understanding of time and place.

Creationism does seem to be in conflict with what is obvious. But I would say that is due to an overly literal reading of some scriptures. The story of creation is still True in terms of WHY God created the World and the fundamental nature of creation ( as being Good).